Karnataka High Court
Sri R G Robinson vs Smt M Rathnamma on 16 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6773
MFA No. 4936 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4936 OF 2014(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. K.G. ROBINSON,
S/O SRI. K.C. GEORGE,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO.25/2,
NANJAPPA LAYOUT, 3RD PHASE,
VIDYARANYAPURA,
BANGALORE - 560 097.
...APPELLANT
(BY MS. CLARA GEORGE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. M. RATHNAMMA,
W/O LATE VENKATAPPA,
MAJOR,
R/AT NO.103, DEEPTHI NIVASA,
MES ROAD, 2ND MAIN,
MUTHYALAMMA NAGAR,
Digitally
signed by GOKUL,
BHARATHI S BANGALORE - 560 054,
Location:
HIGH COURT (OWNER OF CAR BEARING NO.KA-04N-5621)
OF
KARNATAKA 2. SRI. JAMEEL AHMED KHAN SHIRANI,
S/O SRI. INIYATHULLA KHAN SHIRANI,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/A NO.17, 11TH CROSS, GORIPALYA
BANGALORE - 560 018,
(DRIVER OF CAR BEARING NO.KA-04-N-5621)
3. THE MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
CORPORATE AND REGISTERED OFFICE
ORIENTA, PB NO.1057 AND 25/27,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6773
MFA No. 4936 of 2014
ASATH ALI ROAD,
NEW DELHI (INSURANCE POLICY
NO.421901/31/2010/10320
VALID FROM 06.08.2009
TO 05.08.2010.
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
MALLESHWARAM, YAYHIRAJ MUTT BUILDING,
IST FLOOR, NO.199,
2ND MAIN, MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE,
(INSURANCE POLICY NO.421901/31/2010/10320 VALID
FROM 06.08.2009 TO 05.08.2010
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R1 AND R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 09.07.2019, NOTICE TO
R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01.03.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.8501/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT
OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER-MACT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The above appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the
judgment and award dated 01.03.2014 passed in
MVC.No.8501/2010 by the VI Additional Judge and MACT,
Bengaluru1, wherein the Tribunal has dismissed the claim
petition.
Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'
NC: 2024:KHC:6773
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the claimant that on 07.09.2009,
when he was traveling on his scooter, a Maruti Van came in
rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter causing the
accident in question, wherein he sustained grievous injuries.
Claiming compensation for the said injuries, the claimant filed a
claim petition arraying the owner, driver and insurer of the
Maruti Van as Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively. The
insurer of the scooter which the claimant was riding was
arrayed as Respondent No.4. The Respondents entered
appearance before the Tribunal and contested the claim
proceedings. The owner and driver of the Maruti Van filed its
statement of objections as also the Respondent No.4 - insurer.
4. The claimant examined himself as PW.1 and a
medical record technician of the hospital was examined as
PW.2. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 were marked in evidence. No oral or
documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the
Respondents. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated
01.03.2014 dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved the
present appeal is filed by the claimant.
NC: 2024:KHC:6773
5. Learned counsel for the claimant assailing the
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal contends that the
claimant was first shifted to Baptist hospital where he was
given first aid and thereafter shifted to Bhagawan Mahaveer
Jain Hospital. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal where reliance
is placed on Ex.P.8 issued by Bhagawan Mahaveer Jain Hospital
is contrary to the other material on record. Further the finding
of the Tribunal that due to delay in lodging the complaint, the
claim ought to be dismissed as also contrary to the other
material available on record. Hence, she seeks for allowing of
the present appeal and setting aside of the judgment of
Tribunal.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer justifies
the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
7. The submissions of both the learned counsels have
been considered and the material on record including the
records of the Tribunal have been perused. The question that
arises for consideration is 'whether the judgment of the
Tribunal dismissing the claim petition is liable to be interfered
with?'
NC: 2024:KHC:6773
8. The claimant in the claim petition has averred that
on 07.09.2009, when he was riding a scooter, another Maruti
Van came is rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter
resulting in the accident in question, wherein the claimant
sustained injuries. Claimant compensation for the same, the
claim petition was filed.
9. The claimant examined himself as PW.1 and he has
deposed in his testimony that after the accident he was shifted
to Baptist Hospital for first aid and thereafter to Bhagawan
Mahaveer Jain Hospital for further treatment with the help of
his brother. The claimant has not, either in the claim petition or
in the affidavit by way of examination in chief set out the
reasons for the delay in lodging the complaint.
10. It is forthcoming that the complaint was lodged on
17.10.2009 i.e., after lapse of 40 days from the date of
accident.
11. Further in the police intimation dated 07.09.2009
sent by Bhagawan Mahaveer Jain Hospital to the High Ground
Police Station, Bengaluru (Ex.P.8), it is stated that since the
PSI was informed that the accident occurred due to fault of the
claimant himself, a endorsement that effect is made which has
NC: 2024:KHC:6773
been attested by the PSI. Further in the discharge summary
dated 12.09.2009 issued by the Bhagawan Mahaveer Jain
Hospital (Ex.P.10) with regard to the history of the accident it is
stated that on 07.09.2009, when the claimant was driving his
two wheeler, he fell down. The said two documents are prior to
date of the complaint lodged. The Tribunal noticing the said
aspect of the matter has further noticed that the IMV report
has not been produced.
12. The Tribunal taking into consideration the
aforementioned circumstances i.e., the endorsement made in
Ex.P.8, the delay of 40 days in filing complaint and
endorsement made in Ex.P.10, has dismissed the claim
petition.
13. Upon a re-appreciation of the material available on
record, although learned counsel for the Appellant vehemently
sought to impeach the findings recorded by the Tribunal, it is
clear and forthcoming that, having regard to the entries made
in Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.10, the same creates a doubt as to the case
put forth by the claimant in the claim petition. Further although
the delay in filing the complaint is not fatal to the claim
NC: 2024:KHC:6773
proceedings, the said delay ought to be adequately explained
which has not been done in the present case.
14. Having regard to the entries made in Ex.P.8 and
Ex.P.10 as noticed above, the onus is on the claimant to
adequately explain the contradiction vis-à-vis the entries made
in the said documents and the case putforth by the claimant in
the claim proceedings, which the claimant has failed to do.
15. Having regard to the aforementioned, the Appellant
has failed in demonstrating that the judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal is in any manner erroneous and liable to
be interfered with by this Court.
16. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
i) The above appeal is dismissed;
ii) The judgment and award dated 01.03.2014 passed
in MVC.No.8501/2010 by the VI Additional Judge
and MACT, Bengaluru, is affirmed;
iii) No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
